Jay I have used many different focal lengths of macro lenses over he past few years. I started with the Nikkor 105 2.8 AF-D, and then moved to the much more easily handheld 60mm 2.8. I found it to be a bit short for what I really wanted to shoot, so I got the Sigma 150mm 2.8 and then added the Sigma 105mm and their new at the time 70mm 2.8. I have used them all, and they were sharp and great for portraits.
The only one I have now is the Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR. It is a superb lens and performs flawlessly. It is great for portraits, IMO. VR offers a bit more stability. If you're going to be doing mostly indoor portraits, 105 might be too long, but I use mine effectively indoors and out.
If you get the 70mm Sigma macro, it will be a great macro and portrait lens, but you suffer decreased working distance than what you'd have with the 105mm. You also give up the VR, which is not as useful at macro distance, it still is helpful when doing close-ups, like flowers for instance. At close range, DOF is thin at wide apertures, so the more stability you can get, all the better for you to stop down and get more of your subject in focus.
Here are a few portrait samples from my 105mm VR. Some were indoors and some were outdoors.
Very nice. I'm considering among my future lens purchases a macro,
however more influenced by wanting a fast f/2.8 for portraits. I
have the 50mm f/1.8 which is great but would like something longer.
The 105mm VR gets a lot of good press but I fear that on a cropped
sensor it's a little unwieldy at 157mm for portraits. Thoughts?
Would a 70mm or 90mm be more appropriate for double duty?
--
If you like what I can do with cards, wait til you see what I do with the limes.
